Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you're going to ask people to keep an "open mind" why don't you present a clip with one?
Right off the bad the heavy left bias is obvious. Wealth isn't "distributed" it's earned. Right there you and the clip lost all credibility. Though I kept going and all the rest of the drivel does is confirm I was right in the first place.
Explain how 1% of the population earned 40% of the nation's wealth.
That statistic is crap because it doesn't count most of the assets of most of the people, like the NPV of their retirement incomes or the market value of their homes.
But first, as long as you're free to work and enjoy the fruits of your labor, why are you so jealous of the people who earned more than you did?
And why is it a job of government to take things away from people?
You're asking for people to keep an "open mind" to a heavy left propaganda film. Why don't you seriously address my questions with an open mind yourself.
Explain how it is the "masses" fault for the inequality and why it should be accepted simply because it is true.
Because the masses buy what the 1% are selling. Accepting that truth is the first step in correcting that issue. You dont need an Iphone. You dont need a brand new car. You dont need the latest fashions. You dont need to eat at McDonalds. Does that make sense to you?
Boycotting would not fix the problem. Tell me why is it justified that 1% of the population controls 40% of the nation's wealth.
How about you find stats of your own that actually do dispute these?
Because the masses buy what the 1% are selling. Accepting that truth is the first step in correcting that issue. You dont need an Iphone. You dont need a brand new car. You dont need the latest fashions. You dont need to eat at McDonalds. Does that make sense to you?
Boycotting would not fix the problem. Tell me why is it justified that 1% of the population controls 40% of the nation's wealth.
Yes boycotting would begin to fix the problem. Its not the only answer of course. The wealth would stay in your pocket and not flow to the 1%. Also the effect of boycotting would lower prices due to the law of supply and demand. When you say justified what do you mean? Are you speaking of in a legal sense or a moral sense?
How about you find stats of your own that actually do dispute these?
Um...hmmm.
I keep arguing that I don't have your wealth envy and I don't care about your wealth envy. Why would I go down a rat hole that is just self serving for your whine and dine on someone else's nickle cause?
I appreciate what I have, both the money and the opportunity. Your problem is you don't, you're focused on what other people have.
Boycotting would not fix the problem. Tell me why is it justified that 1% of the population controls 40% of the nation's wealth.
Yes boycotting would begin to fix the problem. Its not the only answer of course. The wealth would stay in your pocket and not flow to the 1%. Also the effect of boycotting would lower prices due to the law of supply and demand. When you say justified what do you mean? Are you speaking of in a legal sense or a moral sense?
A moral sense. I don't see how you can possibly make the argument that 1% of the population earned 40% of the wealth.
Yes boycotting would begin to fix the problem. Its not the only answer of course. The wealth would stay in your pocket and not flow to the 1%. Also the effect of boycotting would lower prices due to the law of supply and demand. When you say justified what do you mean? Are you speaking of in a legal sense or a moral sense?
A moral sense. I don't see how you can possibly make the argument that 1% of the population earned 40% of the wealth.
In a moral sense i would have to say its unfair but only slightly so. Its really only because I come from a background that did not have or teach the concepts of wealth. As far as my argument its pretty self evident they earned it. They have the wealth and it came because people willingly put that wealth into their pockets.
Boycotting would not fix the problem. Tell me why is it justified that 1% of the population controls 40% of the nation's wealth.
Yes boycotting would begin to fix the problem. Its not the only answer of course. The wealth would stay in your pocket and not flow to the 1%. Also the effect of boycotting would lower prices due to the law of supply and demand. When you say justified what do you mean? Are you speaking of in a legal sense or a moral sense?
A moral sense. I don't see how you can possibly make the argument that 1% of the population earned 40% of the wealth.
I not only listened, I directly addressed your point. You didn't comprehend the answer. You are measuring money, I am measuring opportunity. You are saying it's unfair people were distributed more money than you were. I'm saying it's fair they used their opportunity to earn more money than you did.How about you find stats of your own that actually do dispute these?
Um...hmmm.
I keep arguing that I don't have your wealth envy and I don't care about your wealth envy. Why would I go down a rat hole that is just self serving for your whine and dine on someone else's nickle cause?
I appreciate what I have, both the money and the opportunity. Your problem is you don't, you're focused on what other people have.
Lol you just don't listen do you? Wow.
A moral sense. I don't see how you can possibly make the argument that 1% of the population earned 40% of the wealth.
In a moral sense i would have to say its unfair but only slightly so. Its really only because I come from a background that did not have or teach the concepts of wealth. As far as my argument its pretty self evident they earned it. They have the wealth and it came because people willingly put that wealth into their pockets.
Slightly so? Wow. That's something else.
In a moral sense i would have to say its unfair but only slightly so. Its really only because I come from a background that did not have or teach the concepts of wealth. As far as my argument its pretty self evident they earned it. They have the wealth and it came because people willingly put that wealth into their pockets.
Slightly so? Wow. That's something else.
Lets say you opened a business and from that business you sold everyone in your village a widget. The people in your village didnt really need the widget but they liked it and willingly spent their money on it. Over a given time period you became wealthy because everyone begin to love your widget. Suddenly your neighbor says that you earning all that money was unfair. How would you take that comment?
I not only listened, I directly addressed your point. You didn't comprehend the answer. You are measuring money, I am measuring opportunity. You are saying it's unfair people were distributed more money than you were. I'm saying it's fair they used their opportunity to earn more money than you did.Um...hmmm.
I keep arguing that I don't have your wealth envy and I don't care about your wealth envy. Why would I go down a rat hole that is just self serving for your whine and dine on someone else's nickle cause?
I appreciate what I have, both the money and the opportunity. Your problem is you don't, you're focused on what other people have.
Lol you just don't listen do you? Wow.
You're focused on money. If I research and present alternatives that are measured in dollars, all I'm doing is playing your game. I'm saying you're playing the wrong game. Stop lamenting someone else being richer than you are and start celebrating the opportunity you have which is so much more than almost anyone in history ever had. Jealousy will never make you happy. It's just the tool liberal lawyers use to manipulate you.
Slightly so? Wow. That's something else.
Lets say you opened a business and from that business you sold everyone in your village a widget. The people in your village didnt really need the widget but they liked it and willingly spent their money on it. Over a given time period you became wealthy because everyone begin to love your widget. Suddenly your neighbor says that you earning all that money was unfair. How would you take that comment?
You're missing the point. I am not criticizing the nature of capitalism itself. I favor the system. I understand the importance of the CONCEPT of wealth inequality. However, in the US it has been taken to a ridiculous extreme. As important as the wealthy are, they still need limitations. The reach of their power has negatively affected the country as a whole.
The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.
Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.
As important as the wealthy are, they still need limitations. The reach of their power has negatively affected the country as a whole.
Yes boycotting would begin to fix the problem. Its not the only answer of course. The wealth would stay in your pocket and not flow to the 1%. Also the effect of boycotting would lower prices due to the law of supply and demand. When you say justified what do you mean? Are you speaking of in a legal sense or a moral sense?
A moral sense. I don't see how you can possibly make the argument that 1% of the population earned 40% of the wealth.
Clearly they just work that much harder than other people. Just like CEOs now work 10x harder than they did in the 70s. Now they are working 500 hours a week instead of 50. Pretty amazing.
As important as the wealthy are, they still need limitations. The reach of their power has negatively affected the country as a whole.
Winston Churchill: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
First, you propose as solution, "limits" where you shift power from people (capitalists) who don't have guns to force people to do anything to liberal lawyers who do have the power to force people to do anything. Looking at what politicians are doing today with an objective mind would scare you far more than what capitalists, and you want to give them MORE power?
And why? You can do whatever you want. Why do you care so much that other people have more than you do?
Explain how it is the "masses" fault for the inequality and why it should be accepted simply because it is true.
Because the masses buy what the 1% are selling. Accepting that truth is the first step in correcting that issue. You dont need an Iphone. You dont need a brand new car. You dont need the latest fashions. You dont need to eat at McDonalds. Does that make sense to you?
Boycotting would not fix the problem. Tell me why is it justified that 1% of the population controls 40% of the nation's wealth.
A moral sense. I don't see how you can possibly make the argument that 1% of the population earned 40% of the wealth.
Clearly they just work that much harder than other people. Just like CEOs now work 10x harder than they did in the 70s. Now they are working 500 hours a week instead of 50. Pretty amazing.
Its really not the amount of time a person works. Its about the value that a person puts in the time they work.
Clearly they just work that much harder than other people. Just like CEOs now work 10x harder than they did in the 70s. Now they are working 500 hours a week instead of 50. Pretty amazing.
Its really not the amount of time a person works. Its about the value that a person puts in the time they work.
So CEOs are just 10x better now are they? You sure it's not just greed and crony capitalism?
